THE RULE ON THE WRIT OF AMPARO (A.M.
NO 07-9-12-SC, OCTOBER 24, 2007)
CASE NUMBER/TITLE/G.R NO/PONENTE
(1) THE SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE,
THE CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF
THE PHILIPPINES VS RAYMOND MANALO
and REYNALDO MANALO, G.R. No. 180906,
October 7, 2008
PONENTE: PUNO, C.J.:
(2) IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR
THE WRIT OF AMPARO AND THE WRIT OF
HABEAS DATA IN FAVOR OF MELISSA C.
ROXAS vs GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO,
GILBERT TEODORO, GEN. VICTOR S.
IBRADO, P/DIR. GEN. JESUS AME VERZOSA,
LT. GEN. DELFIN N. BANGIT, PC/SUPT. LEON
NILO A. DELA CRUZ, MAJ. GEN. RALPH
CASE RULING
INSPECTION ORDER VERSUS SEARCH WARRANT
***The PRODUCTION ORDER UNDER THE AMPARO RULE should NOT BE CONFUSED WITH a SEARCH WARRANT for law
enforcement under Article III, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution. This CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION is a protection of the
people from the unreasonable intrusion of the government, NOT a protection of the government from the demand of the
people such as respondents. Instead, the AMPARO PRODUCTION ORDER may be likened to the production of documents or
things under Section 1, Rule 27 of the Rules of Civil Procedure which provides in relevant part, viz: SECTION 1. MOTION FOR
PRODUCTION OR INSPECTION ORDER. Upon motion of any party showing good cause therefor, the COURT IN WHICH AN
ACTION IS PENDING may (a) order any party to produce and permit the inspection and copying or photographing, by or on
behalf of the moving party, of any designated documents, papers, books of accounts, letters, photographs, objects or tangible
things, NOT PRIVILEGED, which constitute or contain evidence material to any matter involved in the action and which are in
his possession, custody or control.
The POSSIBILITY OF RESPONDENTS being executed stared them in the eye while they were in detention. WITH THEIR ESCAPE,
this continuing threat to their life is apparent, moreso now that they have surfaced and implicated specific officers in the
military not only in their own abduction and torture, but also in those of other persons known to have disappeared such as
Sherlyn Cadapan, Karen Empeo, and Manuel Merino, among others. Understandably, SINCE THEIR ESCAPE, respondents have
been under concealment and protection by private citizens because of the threat to their life, liberty and security. The THREAT
vitiates their free will as they are forced to limit their movements or activities. Precisely because respondents are being shielded
from the perpetrators of their abduction, they cannot be expected to show evidence of overt acts of threat such as face-to-face
intimidation or written threats to their life, liberty and security. ***Nonetheless, the CIRCUMSTANCES OF RESPONDENTS
ABDUCTION, DETENTION, TORTURE AND ESCAPE reasonably support a conclusion that there is an apparent threat that they will
again be abducted, tortured, and this time, even executed. These constitute THREATS TO THEIR LIBERTY, SECURITY, AND LIFE,
ACTIONABLE THROUGH A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF AMPARO. (CITED IN THE BOOK OF FESTIN, PAGE 272)
INAPPLICABILITY OF THE DOCTRINE OF COMMAND RESPONSIBILITY IN AN AMPARO PROCEEDING
The DOCTRINE OF COMMAND RESPONSIBILITY is a rule of substantive law that establishes liability and, by this account,
CANNOT BE A PROPER LEGAL BASIS to implead a party-respondent in an amparo petition.
***Since the APPLICATION OF COMMAND RESPONSIBILITY presupposes an imputation of individual liability, it is MORE APTLY
INVOKED in a full-blown criminal or administrative case rather than in a summary amparo proceeding. The OBVIOUS REASON
LIES IN THE NATURE OF THE WRIT ITSELF: The WRIT OF AMPARO is a protective remedy aimed at providing judicial relief
VILLANUEVA, PS/SUPT. RUDY GAMIDO
LACADIN, AND CERTAIN PERSONS WHO GO
BY THE NAME[S] DEX, RC AND ROSE, G.R.
No. 189155, September 7, 2010
PONENTE: PEREZ, J.:
(3) GEN. AVELINO I. RAZON, JR., Chief,
Philippine National Police (PNP); Police
Chief Superintendent RAUL CASTAEDA,
Chief, Criminal Investigation and Detection
Group (CIDG); Police Senior Superintendent
LEONARDO A. ESPINA, Chief, Police Anti-
Crime and Emergency Response (PACER);
and GEN. JOEL R. GOLTIAO, Regional
Director of ARMM, PNP, vs MARY JEAN B.
TAGITIS, herein represented by ATTY.
FELIPE P. ARCILLA, JR., Attorney-in-Fact,
G.R. No. 182498, December 3, 2009
PONENTE: BRION, J.:
(4) IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR
THE ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF AMPARO IN
FAVOR OF LILIBETH LADAGA VS. MAJOR
GENERAL REYNALDO MAPAGU,
COMMANDING GENERAL OF THE
PHILIPPINE ARMY'S 10TH INFANTRY
DIVISION, ET AL./IN THE MATTER OF THE
PETITION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF
consisting of the appropriate remedial measures and directives that may be crafted by the court, in order to address specific
violations or threats of violation of the constitutional rights to life, liberty or security. While the PRINCIPAL OBJECTIVE OF ITS
PROCEEDINGS is the initial determination of whether an enforced disappearance, extralegal killing or threats thereof had
transpired, the WRIT DOES NOT, by so doing, fix liability for such disappearance, killing or threats, whether that may be
criminal, civil or administrative under the applicable substantive law.
It must be clarified, however, that the INAPPLICABILITY OF THE DOCTRINE OF COMMAND RESPONSIBILITY IN AN AMPARO
PROCEEDING does not, by any measure, preclude impleading military or police commanders on the ground that the complained
acts in the petition were committed with their direct or indirect acquiescence. In which case, COMMANDERS MAY BE
IMPLEADED not actually on the basis of command responsibility, but RATHER ON THE GROUND of their responsibility, or at
least accountability. USE BY THE PETITIONER OF THE DOCTRINE OF COMMAND RESPONSIBILITY as the justification in
impleading the public respondents in her amparo petition, is legally inaccurate, if not incorrect.
MOST BASIC OF TEST REASON
***The FAIR AND PROPER RULE, to our mind, is to consider all the pieces of evidence adduced in their totality, and to consider
any evidence otherwise inadmissible under our usual rules to be admissible if it is consistent with the admissible evidence
adduced. In other words, we REDUCE OUR RULES TO THE MOST BASIC TEST OF REASON i.e., to the relevance of the evidence to
the issue at hand and its consistency with all other pieces of adduced evidence. Thus, even hearsay evidence can be admitted if
it satisfies this basic minimum test.
Based on these considerations, we conclude that COL. KASIMS DISCLOSURE, made in an unguarded moment, unequivocally
point to some government complicity in the disappearance. The CONSISTENT BUT UNFOUNDED DENIALS AND THE
HAPHAZARD INVESTIGATIONS cannot but point to this conclusion. From the prism of the UN Declaration, heretofore cited and
quoted, the EVIDENCE AT HAND AND THE DEVELOPMENTS IN THIS CASE confirm the fact of the enforced disappearance and
government complicity, under a background of consistent and unfounded government denials and haphazard handling. The
DISAPPEARANCE as well effectively placed Tagitis outside the protection of the law a situation that will subsist unless this Court
acts.
WHAT IS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE? / THE THREAT TO LIFE, LIBERTY AND SECURITY MUST BE ACTUAL, NOT MERELY ONE OF
SUPPOSITION
***SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE is that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
support a conclusion. It is more than a mere imputation of wrongdoing or violation that would warrant a finding of liability
against the person charged. The SUMMARY NATURE OF AMPARO PROCEEDINGS, as well as, the USE OF SUBSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE as standard of proof shows the intent of the framers of the rule to address situations of enforced disappearance and
extrajudicial killings, or threats thereof, with what is akin to administrative proceedings. (CITED IN THE BOOK OF FESTIN, PAGE
AMPARO IN FAVOR OF ANGELA A.
LIBRADO-TRINIDAD VS. MAJOR GENERAL
REYNALDO MAPAGU, COMMANDING
GENERAL OF THE PHILIPPINE ARMY'S 10TH
INFANTRY DIVISION, ET AL.IN THE MATTER
FO THE PETITION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A
WRIT OF AMPARO IN FAVOR OF CARLOS
ISAGANI T. ZARATE VS. MAJOR GENERAL
REYNALDO MAPAGU, COMMANDING
GENERAL OF THE PHILIPPINE ARMY'S 10TH
INFANTRY DIVISION, ET AL., G.R. NO.
189689/G.R. NO. 189690/G.R. NO. 189691,
NOVEMBER 13, 2012
PONENTE: PERLAS-BERNABE
(5 AND 9) RODOLFO NOEL LOZADA, JR.,
VIOLETA LOZADA and ARTURO LOZADA vs
PRESIDENT GLORIA MACAPAGAL ARROYO,
EDUARDO ERMITA, AVELINO RAZON,
ANGEL ATUTUBO and SPO4 ROGER
VALEROSO, G.R. Nos. 184379-80, April 24,
2012
PONENTE: SERENO, J.:
258)
***The ALLEGED THREAT TO HEREIN PETITIONERS' RIGHTS TO LIFE, LIBERTY AND SECURITY must be actual, and not merely
one of supposition or with the likelihood of happening. And, WHEN THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED ESTABLISHES THE THREAT TO BE
EXISTENT, as opposed to a potential one, then, it goes without saying that the threshold requirement of substantial evidence in
amparo proceedings has also been met. Thus, in the words of Justice Brion, in the context of the Amparo rule, ONLY ACTUAL
THREATS, as may be established from all the facts and circumstances of the case, can qualify as a violation that may be
addressed under the Rule on the Writ of Amparo.
However, the EXISTENCE OF THE OB LIST could not be directly associated with the menacing behavior of suspicious men or the
violent deaths of certain personalities. PETITIONERS CANNOT ASSERT THAT THE INCLUSION OF THEIR NAMES IN THE OB LIST is
as real a threat as that which brought ultimate harm to other victims without corroborative evidence from which it can be
presumed that the suspicious deaths of those victims where in fact, on account of their militant affiliations.
WHAT IS THE NATURE OF THE WRIT OF AMPARO?
The WRIT OF AMPARO is an independent and summary remedy that provides rapid judicial relief to protect the peoples right
to life, liberty and security. Having been originally intended as a RESPONSE TO THE ALARMING CASES OF EXTRAJUDICIAL
KILLINGS AND ENFORCED DISAPPEARANCES IN THE COUNTRY, it serves both preventive and curative roles to address the said
human rights violations. It is PREVENTIVE in that it breaks the expectation of impunity in the commission of these offenses,
and it is CURATIVE in that it facilitates the subsequent punishment of perpetrators by inevitably leading to subsequent
investigation and action. (CITED IN THE BOOK OF FESTIN, PAGE 249)
TO WHAT CASES THE WRIT OF AMPARO APPLY?
As it stands, the WRIT OF AMPARO is confined only to cases of extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances, or to threats
thereof. Considering that this REMEDY is aimed at addressing these serious violations of or threats to the right to life, liberty and
security, it CANNOT BE ISSUED on amorphous and uncertain grounds, or in cases where the alleged threat has ceased and is no
longer imminent or continuing. Instead, it must be granted judiciously so as not to dilute the extraordinary and remedial
character of the writ, thus: The PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF AMPARO is envisioned basically to protect and guarantee the rights
to life, liberty, and security of persons, free from fears and threats that vitiate the quality of this life. It is an EXTRAORDINARY
WRIT conceptualized and adopted in light of and in response to the prevalence of extra-legal killings and enforced
disappearances. Accordingly, the REMEDY OUGHT TO BE RESORTED TO AND GRANTED JUDICIOUSLY, lest the ideal sought by
the Amparo Rule be diluted and undermined by the indiscriminate filing of amparo petitions for purposes less than the desire to
secure amparo reliefs and protection and/or on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations. (CITED IN THE BOOK OF FESTIN, PAGE
249)
 REQUIRED QUANTUM OF EVIDENCE IN A WRIT OF AMPARO (SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE)

Thus, in AMPARO ACTIONS, petitioners must establish their claims by substantial evidence, and they cannot merely rely on the
supposed failure of respondents to prove either their defenses or their exercise of extraordinary diligence. In this case, THE
TOTALITY OF THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY PETITIONERS fails to meet the requisite evidentiary threshold, and the privilege of
the writ of amparo has already been rendered moot and academic by the cessation of the restraint to Lozadas liberty. (CITED IN
THE BOOK OF FESTIN, PAGE 261)

Thus, IF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE DOJ HAD ALREADY PROGRESSED INTO A CRIMINAL CASE, then the latter action
can more adequately dispose of the allegations made by petitioners. After all, ONE OF THE ULTIMATE OBJECTIVES OF THE
WRIT OF AMPARO as a curative remedy is to facilitate the subsequent punishment of perpetrators. On the other hand, if there is
NO ACTUAL CRIMINAL CASE LODGED BEFORE THE COURTS, then the denial of the Petition is without prejudice to the filing of
the appropriate administrative, civil or criminal case, if applicable, against those individuals whom Lozada deems to have
unduly restrained his liberty.

(6) SECRETARY LEILA M. DE LIMA, IS THE REVISED RULE ON SUMMARY PROCEDURE APPLICABLE IN AMPARO PROCEEDING? (NO)
DIRECTOR NONNATUS R. ROJAS and
DEPUTY DIRECTOR REYNALDO 0. A WRIT OF AMPARO is a special proceeding. It is a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status, a right or particular
ESMERALDA vs MAGTANGGOL B. fact. It is NOT a civil nor a criminal action, hence, the application of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure is seriously
GATDULA, G.R. No. 204528, February 19, misplaced. (CITED IN THE BOOK OF FESTIN, PAGE 250)
2013
IS A MEMORANDUM ALLOWED IN AMPARO PROCEEDING? (NO)
PONENTE: LEONEN, J.:
The RETURN IN AMPARO CASES allows the respondents to frame the issues subject to a hearing. Hence, it should be done prior
to the hearing, not after. A MEMORANDUM, on the other hand, is a synthesis of the claims of the party litigants and is a final
pleading usually required before the case is submitted for decision. One cannot substitute for the other since these submissions
have different functions in facilitating the suit. More importantly, a MEMORANDUM is a prohibited pleading under the Rule on
the Writ of Amparo. (CITED IN THE BOOK OF FESTIN, PAGE 250)

(7) IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR
THE WRIT OF AMPARO AND HABEAS DATA
IN FAVOR OF NORIEL H. RODRIGUEZ vs
GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, GEN.
VICTOR S. IBRADO, PDG JESUS AME
VERSOZA, LT. GEN. DELFIN BANGIT, MAJ.
GEN. NESTOR Z. OCHOA, P/CSUPT. AMETO
G. TOLENTINO, P/SSUPT. JUDE W. SANTOS,
RESPONSIBILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY IN THE CONTEXT OF AMPARO PROCEEDINGS / FAILURE TO CONDUCT A FAIR AND
EFFECTIVE INVESTIGATION AMOUNTS TO A VIOLATION OF OR THREAT TO LIFE, LIBERTY AND SECURITY
***The RULE ON THE WRIT OF AMPARO explicitly states that the VIOLATION OF OR THREAT TO THE RIGHT TO LIFE, LIBERTY
AND SECURITY may be caused by either an act or an omission of a public official. Moreover, in the CONTEXT OF AMPARO
PROCEEDINGS, RESPONSIBILITY may refer to the participation of the respondents, by action or omission, in enforced
disappearance. ACCOUNTABILITY, on the other hand, may attach to respondents who are imputed with knowledge relating to
the enforced disappearance and who carry the burden of disclosure; or those who carry, but have failed to discharge, the
COL. REMIGIO M. DE VERA, an officer
named MATUTINA, LT. COL. MINA, CALOG,
GEORGE PALACPAC under the name
HARRY, ANTONIO CRUZ, ALDWIN BONG
PASICOLAN and VINCENT CALLAGAN, G.R.
No. 191805, November 15, 2011
PONENTE: SERENO, J.:
(8) SPOUSES NERIO AND SOLEDAD PADOR
AND REY PADOR VS. BARANGAY CAPTAIN
BERNABE ARCAYAN, BARANGAY TANOD
CHIEF ROMEO PADOR, BARANGAY TANODS
ALBERTO ALIVIO, CARMELO REVALES,
ROBERTO ALIMORIN, WINELO ARCAYAN,
CHRISTOPHER ALIVIO & BIENVENIDO
ARCAYAN, ALL OF BARANGAY TABUNAN,
CEBU CITY, G.R. NO. 183460, MARCH 12,
2013
PONENTE: SERENO, J.:
(10) ANITA MANGILA vs. JUDGE HERIBERTO
M. PANGILINAN, ASST. CITY PROSECUTOR II
LUCIA JUDY SOLINAP, and NATIONAL
BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (DIRECTOR
REYNALDO WYCOCO), G.R. No. 160739, July
17, 2013
PONENTE: BERSAMIN, J.:
burden of extraordinary diligence in the investigation of the enforced disappearance.
In the instant case, this Court rules that RESPONDENTS IN G.R. NO. 191805 are responsible or accountable for the violation of
Rodriguezs right to life, liberty and security ON ACCOUNT of their abject failure to conduct a fair and effective official
investigation of his ordeal in the hands of the military. RESPONDENTS GEN. IBRADO, PDG. VERZOSA, LT. GEN. BANGIT, MAJ.
GEN. OCHOA, COL. DE VERA AND LT. COL. MINA only conducted a perfunctory investigation, exerting no efforts to take
Ramirezs account of the events into consideration. Rather, these RESPONDENTS solely relied on the reports and narration of the
military. ***Clearly, the ABSENCE OF A FAIR AND EFFECTIVE OFFICIAL INVESTIGATION INTO THE CLAIMS OF RODRIGUEZ
violated his right to security, for which RESPONDENTS IN G.R. NO. 191805 must be held responsible or accountable.
WRIT OF AMPARO IS NOT A WRIT TO PROTECT CONCERNS THAT ARE PURELY PROPERTY OR COMMERCIAL
***The WRIT OF AMPARO does NOT envisage the protection of concerns that are purely property or commercial in nature, as
follows: The WRIT OF AMPARO was originally conceived as a response to the extraordinary rise in the number of killings and
enforced disappearances, and to the perceived lack of available and effective remedies to address these extraordinary
concerns. It is intended to address violations of or threats to the rights to life, liberty or security, as an extraordinary and
independent remedy beyond those available under the prevailing Rules, or as a remedy supplemental to these Rules. What it is
NOT, is a writ to protect concerns that are purely property or commercial. NEITHER IS IT A WRIT that we shall issue on
amorphous and uncertain grounds.
We therefore rule that the ALLEGED INTRUSION UPON PETITIONERS’ AMPALAYA FARM is an insufficient ground to grant the
privilege of the writ of amparo.
WHAT IS THE PURPOSE/OBJECT OF A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS?
A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, which is regarded as a "palladium of liberty," is a prerogative writ which does not issue as a
matter of right but in the sound discretion of the court or judge. It is, however, a writ of right on proper formalities being made
by proof. RESORT TO THE WRIT is not to inquire into the criminal act of which a complaint is made but unto the right of liberty,
notwithstanding the act, and the immediate purpose to be served is relief from illegal restraint. The PRIMARY, IF NOT THE ONLY
OBJECT OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AD SUBJUCIENDUM, is to determine the legality of the restraint under which a
person is held. (Bold underscoring supplied for emphasis)
***The OBJECT OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS is to inquire into the legality of the detention, and, if the DETENTION IS
FOUND TO BE ILLEGAL, to require the release of the detainee. Equally well-settled however, is that the WRIT WILL NOT ISSUE
where the person in whose behalf the writ is sought is out on bail, or is in the custody of an officer under process issued by a
court or judge with jurisdiction or by virtue of a judgment or order of a court of record. (CITED IN THE BOOK OF FESTIN, PAGE
204)

(11) IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR
HABEAS CORPUS OF MINOR SHANG KO
VINGSON YU SHIRLY VINGSON@ SHIRLY
VINGSON DEMAISIP vs. JOVY CABCABAN,
UDK No. 14817, January 13, 2014, ABAD, J.:
(12) Infant JULIAN YUSA Y CARAM,
represented by his mother, MA. CHRISTINA
YUSAY CARAM, Petitioner, vs. Atty.
MARIJOY D. SEGUI, Atty. SALLY D. ESCUTIN,
VILMA B. CABRERA, and CELIA C. YANGCO,
Respondents, G.R. No. 193652, August 5,
2014
PONENTE: VILLARAMA, JR., J.:
HABEAS CORPUS is not in the nature of a writ of error; nor intended as substitute for the trial court’s function. It CANNOT
TAKE THE PLACE of appeal, certiorari or writ of error. The WRIT CANNOT BE USED to investigate and consider questions of error
that might be raised relating to procedure or on the merits. The INQUIRY IN A HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDING is addressed to
the question of whether the proceedings and the assailed order are, for any reason, null and void. The WRIT IS NOT
ORDINARILY GRANTED where the law provides for other remedies in the regular course, and in the absence of exceptional
circumstances. Moreover, HABEAS CORPUS SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED in advance of trial. The orderly course of trial must be
pursued and the usual remedies exhausted before resorting to the writ where exceptional circumstances are extant.
In the context of the rule, Mangila had NO NEED TO SEEK THE ISSUANCE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS to secure her
release from detention. Her PROPER RECOURSE was to bring the supposed irregularities attending the conduct of the
preliminary investigation and the issuance of the warrant for her arrest to the attention of the City Prosecutor, who had been
meanwhile given the most direct access to the entire records of the case, including the warrant of arrest, following Judge
Pangilinan’s transmittal of them to the City Prosecutor for appropriate action. ***We agree with the CA, therefore, that the
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS could not be used as a substitute for another available remedy.
DOES THE STATE HAVE THE RIGHT TO INTERVENE IN CUSTODY OF MINOR CASES? (YES) / WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS ALSO
AVAILABLE IN CASES INVOLVING THE RIGHTFUL CUSTODY OVER A MINOR
Under SECTION 1, RULE 102 OF THE RULES OF COURT, the WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS AVAILABLE, not only in cases of illegal
confinement or detention by which any person is deprived of his liberty, but ALSO IN CASES involving the rightful custody over a
minor.
The GENERAL RULE is that PARENTS should have custody over their minor children. But the STATE HAS THE RIGHT TO
INTERVENE where the parents, rather than care for such children, treat them cruelly and abusively, impairing their growth and
well-being and leaving them emotional scars that they carry throughout their lives UNLESS they are liberated from such parents
and properly counseled. (CITED IN THE BOOK OF FESTIN, PAGE 214)
AMPARO RULE CANNOT BE APPLIED IF WHAT IS INVOLVED IS THE ISSUE OF CHILD CUSTODY AND EXERCISE OF PARENTAL
RIGHTS OVER A CHILD
Since it is extant from the pleadings filed that WHAT IS INVOLVED IS THE ISSUE OF CHILD CUSTODY AND THE EXERCISE OF
PARENTAL RIGHTS OVER A CHILD, who, for all intents and purposes, has been legally considered a ward of the State, the
AMPARO RULE cannot be properly applied. (CITED IN THE BOOK OF FESTIN, PAGE 222)
To reiterate, the PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF AMPARO is a remedy available to victims of extra-judicial killings and enforced
disappearances or threats of a similar nature, regardless of whether the perpetrator of the unlawful act or omission is a public
official or employee or a private individual. It is ENVISIONED BASICALLY to protect and guarantee the right to life, liberty and
 security of persons, free from fears and threats that vitiate the quality of life.

(13) CHAIRPERSON SIEGFRED B. MISON, in ELEMENTS CONSTITUTING ENFORCED DISAPPEARANCE

his capacity as Chairperson1 of Bureau of
Immigration and Deportation Petitioner, vs.
HON. PAULINO Q. GALLEGOS, in his
capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional
Trial Court-Manila, Branch 47 and JA HOON
KU, Respondents, G.R. No. 210759, June 23,
2015
PONENTE: PEREZ, J.:
As the AMPARO RULE WAS INTENDED TO ADDRESS THE INTRACTABLE PROBLEM OF "EXTRALEGAL KILLINGS" AND "ENFORCED
DISAPPEARANCES," its COVERAGE, IN ITS PRESENT FORM, IS CONFINED to these two instances or to threats thereof.
"EXTRALEGAL KILLINGS" are ‘killings committed without due process of law, i.e., without legal safeguards or judicial
proceedings." On the other hand, "ENFORCED DISAPPEARANCES" are "attended by the following characteristics: an arrest,
detention or abduction of a person by a government official or organized groups or private individuals acting with the direct or
indirect acquiescence of the government; the refusal of the State to disclose the fate or where abouts of the person concerned
or a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty which places such persons outside the protection of law.
As to WHAT CONSTITUTES "ENFORCED DISAPPEARANCE," the Court in Navia v. Pardico enumerated the ELEMENTS
CONSTITUTING "ENFORCED DISAPPEARANCES" as the term is statutorily defined in Section 3(g) of Republic Act (R.A.) No.
9851,43 to wit: CODE: AC – FI

a. That there be an ARREST, DETENTION, ABDUCTION or any form of deprivation of liberty;

b. That it be CARRIED OUT BY, OR WITH the authorization, support or acquiescence of, the State or a political organization;

c. That it be FOLLOWED BY THE STATE OR POLITICAL ORGANIZATION’S REFUSAL TO ACKNOWLEDGE OR GIVE INFORMATION
on the fate or whereabouts of the person subject of the amparo petition.

d. That the INTENTION FOR SUCH REFUSAL is to remove the subject person from the protection of the law for a prolonged
period of time.

GUIDED BY THE PARAMETERS OF R.A. NO. 9851, we can readily discern that KU’S CIRCUMSTANCE does not come under the
statutory definition of an enforced or involuntary disappearance. Indeed, KU was arrested by agents of the BI, but there was no
refusal on the part of the BI to acknowledge such arrest nor was there any refusal to give information on the whereabouts of Ku.
Neither can it be said that the BI had any intention to remove Ku from the protection of the law for a prolonged time. More
importantly, in the RETURN OF THE WRIT, petitioner readily disclosed to the trial court that Ku was in the custody of the BI
pursuant to a Warrant of Deportation and a Summary Deportation Order.

(14) ARTHUR BALAO, WINSTON BALAO, ARCHIVING OF CASES UNDER THE AMPARO RULE
NONETTE BALAO, JONILYN BALAO-
STRUGAR, AND BEVERLY LONGID, ***Jurisprudence states that ARCHIVING OF CASES is a procedural measure designed to temporarily defer the hearing of cases
Petitioners, v. EDUARDO ERMITA, in which no immediate action is expected, but where no grounds exist for their outright dismissal. Under this scheme, an
GILBERTO TEODORO, RONALDO PUNO,
NORBERTO GONZALES, GEN. ALEXANDER
YANO, GEN. JESUS VERZOSA, BRIG. GEN.
REYNALDO MAPAGU, LT. P/DIR. EDGARDO
DOROMAL, MAJ. GEN. ISAGANI CACHUELA,
COMMANDING OFFICER OF THE AFP-ISU
BASED IN BAGUIO CITY, PSS EUGENE
MARTIN, AND SEVERAL JOHN DOES, G.R.
No. 186050, June 21, 2016
PONENTE: PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
(15) LORIE MARIE TOMAS CALLO vs.
COMMISSIONER JAIME H. MORENTE,
BUREAUS OF IMMIGRATION, OIC
ASSOCIATES COMMISSIONERS BUREAU OF
IMMIGRATION and BRIAN ALAS, BUREAU
OF IMMIGRATION, G.R. No. 230324,
SEPTEMBER 19, 2017
PONENTE: CARPIO, Acting
INACTIVE CASE is kept alive but held in abeyance until the situation obtains in which action thereon can be taken. To be sure,
the AMPARO RULE sanctions the archiving of cases, PROVIDED that it is impelled by a valid cause, such as when the witnesses
fail to appear due to threats on their lives or to similar analogous causes that would prevent the court from effectively hearing
and conducting the amparo proceedings which, however, do not obtain in these cases.
Here, while it may appear that the investigation conducted by the AFP reached an impasse, it must be pointed out that there
was still an active lead worth pursuing by the PNP. Thus, the INVESTIGATION HAD NOT REACHED A DEAD-END - which would
have warranted the case's archiving - because the testimony of Gonzales set forth an immediate action on the part of the PNP
which could possibly solve, or uncover new leads, in the ongoing investigation of James's abduction. Therefore, the RTC'S
RECOMMENDATION THAT THESE CASES SHOULD BE ARCHIVED is clearly premature, and hence, must be rejected.
REQUIRED QUANTUM OF PROOF IN ENFORCED DISAPPERANCE
Simply put, we see no enforced or involuntary disappearance, or any threats thereof, that would WARRANT THE ISSUANCE OF
THE WRIT OF AMPARO. For the ISSUANCE OF THE WRIT, it is NOT SUFFICIENT that a person's life is endangered. It is even NOT
SUFFICIENT to allege and prove that a person has disappeared. It has to be shown by the REQUIRED QUANTUM OF PROOF that
the disappearance was carried out by, or with the authorization, support or acquiescence of the government or a political
organization, and that there is a refusal to acknowledge the same or to give information on the fate or whereabouts of the
missing persons. In this case, PARKER HAS NOT DISAPPEARED. Her DETENTION HAS BEEN SUFFICIENTLY JUSTIFIED BY THE
BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION, given that there is an SDO and a pending criminal case against her.
ORDER OF PRIORITY IN FILING A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF AMPARO MUST BE STRICTLY FOLLOWED
Finally, we note that the PETITION FOR THE WRIT OF AMPARO was filed by Callo. However, there was no allegation of her
relationship to Parker. SECTION 2 OF THE RULE ON THE WRIT OF AMPARO PROVIDES: The PETITION MAY BE FILED by the
aggrieved party or by any qualified person or entity in the FOLLOWING ORDER:
(a) Any member of the immediate family, namely: the spouse, children and parents of the aggrieved party;
(b) Any ascendant, descendant or collateral relative of the aggrieved party within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or
affinity, in default of those mentioned in the preceding paragraph; or
(c) Any concerned citizen, organization, association or institution, if there is no known member of the immediate family or
relative of the aggrieved party.
Indeed, the PARENTS OF SHERLYN AND KAREN failed to allege that there were no known members of the immediate family or
relatives of Merino. The EXCLUSIVE AND SUCCESSIVE ORDER MANDATED BY THE ABOVE-QUOTED PROVISION must be
followed. ***The ORDER OF PRIORITY is not without reason - "to prevent the indiscriminate and groundless filing of petitions

(16) MAYOR WILLIAM N. MAMBA, ATTY.
FRANCISCO N. MAMBA, JR., ARIEL
MALANA, NARDING AGGANGAN, JOMARI
SAGALON, JUN CINABRE, FREDERICK
BALIGOD, ROMMEL ENCOLLADO, JOSEPH
TUMALIUAN, and RANDY DAYAG vs.
LEOMAR BUENO, G.R. No. 191416
PONENTE: REYES, J.:
for amparo which may even prejudice the right to life, liberty or security of the aggrieved party."
Thus, while "ANY PERSON" may file a petition for the writ of habeas corpus, in a PETITION FOR THE WRIT OF AMPARO, the
order of priority on who can file the petition should be strictly followed. In this case, there was NO ALLEGATION NOR PROOF
that Parker had no immediate family members or any ascendant, descendant, or collateral relative within the fourth civil degree
of consanguinity or affinity. In fact, NO ALLEGATION WAS MADE on any of the familial relationship of Parker as only her
whereabouts from 2011 were alleged and discussed. Therefore, based on the order of priority, CALLO had no legal standing to
file this petition.
A WRIT OF AMPARO MAY STILL ISSUE EVEN IF ALREADY RELEASED FROM DETENTION
***Accordingly, a WRIT OF AMPARO may still issue in the respondent's favor notwithstanding that he has already been
released from detention. In such case, the WRIT OF AMPARO IS ISSUED to facilitate the punishment of those behind the illegal
detention through subsequent investigation and action. More importantly, the WRIT OF AMPARO likewise covers violations of
the right to security. At the CORE OF THE GUARANTEE OF THE RIGHT TO SECURITY, as embodied in Section 2, Article III of the
Constitution, is the immunity of one's person, including the extensions of his/her person, i.e., houses, papers and effects, against
unwarranted government intrusion. SECTION 2, ARTICLE III OF THE CONSTITUTION not only limits the State's power over a
person's home and possession, but more importantly, protects the privacy and sanctity of the person himself.
The RIGHT TO SECURITY is separate and distinct from the right to life. The RIGHT TO LIFE guarantees essentially the right to be
alive - upon which the enjoyment of all other rights is preconditioned. On the other hand, the RIGHT TO SECURITY is a guarantee
of the secure quality of life, i.e., the life, to which each person has a right, is not a life lived in fear that his person and property
may be unreasonably violated by a powerful ruler.
In the CONTEXT OF THE WRIT OF AMPARO, this right is built into the guarantees of the rights to life and liberty under Article III,
Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution and the right to security of person (as freedom from threat and guarantee of bodily and
psychological integrity) under Article III, Section 2. The RIGHT TO SECURITY OF PERSON in this third sense is a corollary of the
policy that the State "guarantees full respect for human rights" under Article II, Section 11 of the 1987 Constitution. As the
GOVERNMENT is the chief guarantor of order and security, the CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE OF THE RIGHTS TO LIFE, LIBERTY
AND SECURITY OF PERSON IS RENDERED INEFFECTIVE if government does not afford protection to these rights especially when
they are under threat. PROTECTION includes conducting effective investigations, organization of the government apparatus to
extend protection to victims of extralegal killings or enforced disappearances (or threats thereof) and/or their families, and
bringing offenders to the bar of justice. (Citation omitted and emphasis in the original.
Verily, the PETITIONERS failed to point to any specific measures undertaken by them to effectively investigate the
irregularities alleged by the respondent and to prosecute those who are responsible therefor. Worse, the ILLEGAL DETENTION
AND TORTURE SUFFERED BY THE RESPONDENT were perpetrated by the members of the Task Force themselves.